Very worried about J. Weaver, and how apparently his fastball was as low as 84 tonight.

My buddy has Hamels and is probably not pleased with his first couple starts either. I was thinking of offering him my Andrus and Weaver for his Hamels and A. Escobar. What do you all think about this potentially?

This has potential. Hamels has struggled and he might like weavers past stat lines, however, hamels isn't showing any signs of slowing down (other than these past two starts) where as weaver over the past 3 years has reduced his K/9 ratio and as u said his top speed is lowering.

Adrus > Escobar just because of the name he might like that part of the deal, however, they are similar players based on their stat lines.

Weaver also left his game today because he hurt his non growing arm I believe, so I'd be weary of it.

It has potential, but it's relying a lot of the owner of hamels being really unhappy, him looking at weavers stats and thinking positive, and hoping that he overvalues andrus over Escobar

sn267537 wrote:This has potential. Hamels has struggled and he might like weavers past stat lines, however, hamels isn't showing any signs of slowing down (other than these past two starts) where as weaver over the past 3 years has reduced his K/9 ratio and as u said his top speed is lowering.

Adrus > Escobar just because of the name he might like that part of the deal, however, they are similar players based on their stat lines.

Weaver also left his game today because he hurt his non growing arm I believe, so I'd be weary of it.

It has potential, but it's relying a lot of the owner of hamels being really unhappy, him looking at weavers stats and thinking positive, and hoping that he overvalues andrus over Escobar

Looking at both rosters, what would you offer if you were in my shoes? I covet his Y. Molina only because catcher seems to be my weak spot, but I am also strongly interested in dropping Weaver while he sitll has value. I owned Tim Lincecum last year, and don't want to be burned in a similar fashion once again.